Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

____/ Linonut on Tuesday 30 October 2007 23:30 : \____
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
>>>> wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
>>>>
>>>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105
>>>>
>>>> If true, the above is incredible.
>>>
>>> It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day.
>>> It might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true
>>> fro quite some time.
>
> I almost downloaded PowerShell a few days ago. But those dang system
> verification thingies got my goat. The audacity!
>
> Besides, how was I going to authenticate my Linux system with Microsoft?
>
>> Indeed, that's just more of Roy trying to pawn of year-old "news" stories
>> as current.
>
> Well, it's only about a year old.
>
> Still, that's a long time in computing terms, even for Microsoft.
>
> Maybe Roy should add the date as part of the posting.

I'll add something like "Older:" to stuff that's quite old. The article itself
was no inaccurate. It was correct at the time.

Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:59:53 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Linonut on Tuesday 30 October 2007 23:30 : \____
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o'
>> wisdom:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:24:32 -0700, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
>>>>> wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=105
>>>>>
>>>>> If true, the above is incredible.
>>>>
>>>> It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day.
>>>> It might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been
>>>> true fro quite some time.
>>
>> I almost downloaded PowerShell a few days ago. But those dang system
>> verification thingies got my goat. The audacity!
>>
>> Besides, how was I going to authenticate my Linux system with
>> Microsoft?
>>
>>> Indeed, that's just more of Roy trying to pawn of year-old "news"
>>> stories as current.
>>
>> Well, it's only about a year old.
>>
>> Still, that's a long time in computing terms, even for Microsoft.
>>
>> Maybe Roy should add the date as part of the posting.
>
> I'll add something like "Older:" to stuff that's quite old. The article
> itself was no inaccurate. It was correct at the time.

So you are a liar.
No dispute there.

--
flatfish+++

"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
"Is this the year of Linux?"
"Linux is free only when your time has no value"

Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:59:53 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Maybe Roy should add the date as part of the posting.
>
> I'll add something like "Older:" to stuff that's quite old. The article itself
> was no inaccurate. It was correct at the time.

Ahh.. that must be why you said "Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready
either", using the current tense and claiming that TODAY it's not, then
presented an article from a year ago that was out of date within weeks.

It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day.
It might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true
fro quite some time.

--
Tom Shelton

Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

Keith Windsor wrote:
>
> "skydweller" wrote in message
> news:OOMVi.1141$2T3.1127@newsfe12.lga...
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ars at FOSSCamp: revolutionizing the command line with Hotwire
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>http://arstechnica.com/journals/linu...e-with-hotwire
>>>>
>>>> Even Microsoft has decided that it needed to catch up. Everyone uses
>>>> the|a command line.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Heavily inspired by Microsoft Powershell..."
>>>
>>> ho hum. So what else is new?
>>>
>>> Rhetorical question: what technology in the Linux/OSS world isn't
>>> "inspired by", "borrowed from", "based on", "implementation of" a
>>> Microsoft app or other commercial app or technology?
>>
>> I'll answer a rhetorical question with another.
>>
>> Who "borrowed" TCP/IP from whom?
>
>
> What! Besides the PowerShell features, did those linux bastards steal the
> TCP/IP stack from someone too? Because it sure wasn't Microsoft that
> "borrowed" someone TCP/IP stack.
>
>
>
> http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displays.../19/05641/7357
>
> [quote]
> I worked at Microsoft for ten years, most of it on the core Windows
> NT/2000 (hereafter referred to as NT) networking code. As such I briefly
> dealt with the Hotmail team, mostly to hear them complain about the
> lameness of the telnet daemon in NT (a valid point). I do know that when
> Microsoft bought Hotmail, the email system was entirely running on
> FreeBSD, and Microsoft immediately set about trying to migrate it to NT,
> and it took many years to do so. Now it seems that the transition is not
> complete. Well, what are you gonna do.
> On the other hand, I know a lot about the TCP/IP stack that is running on
> NT. Here is a short history of it (some of this may also be told in the
> book How the Web Was Won, but I haven't read it):
> [-quote]
>

Reading further ...

Along with Spider's stack came versions of various TCP/IP-related utility
programs, such as ftp, rcp and rsh. Those were ported from BSD sockets to
winsock (not a huge change) and bundled with NT.

Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP
stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed
under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas
the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be
released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source,
you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author."

Apparently, *according to someone who worked at Microsoft for ten years*,
this came from the OSS world (BSD). Of course it's not stolen, neither by
Microsoft nor by linux, since it is free to use under the BSD license, but
I think "borrowed from" the OSS world is a pretty apt description here.
And it clearly is not "inspired by", "borrowed from", "based
on", "implementation of a" Microsoft or any commercial app.

Since we're on the subject of original (not "inspired by", etc., Microsoft &
commercial) linux/OSS technology, you should check out the early history of
the world wide web (yet another trivial technology). Specifically, the
first browser and web server. Something to do with particle physics
research, I think. Strictly (non) commercial.

--
This message brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department

Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> I'll add something like "Older:" to stuff that's quite old. The article itself
> was no inaccurate. It was correct at the time.

I'd put in the dateline, meself!

--
Tux rox!

Re: Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> On Oct 30, 8:12 am, Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>> > Microsoft PowerShell isn't Vista-ready, either
>
> It's not true. I use powershell on Vista Ultimate almost every day.
> It might have been true, when vista was released, but hasn't been true
> fro quite some time.

Weird... I didn't. Must have been google.
> Anyway, looks like Cygwin will do for me.

I use cygwin as well.

--
Tom Shelton

Roy the hypocrite

In article <5335532.QcURzDhb0b@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> I'll add something like "Older:" to stuff that's quite old. The
> article itself was no inaccurate. It was correct at the time.

Considering how quickly you bitch at people on Digg for daring to post a
story that is already a week or two old, how do you justify posting
things that are a year old?

Re: Roy the hypocrite

____/ Tim Smith on Wednesday 31 October 2007 06:24 : \____
> In article <5335532.QcURzDhb0b@schestowitz.com>,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> I'll add something like "Older:" to stuff that's quite old. The
>> article itself was no inaccurate. It was correct at the time.
>
> Considering how quickly you bitch at people on Digg for daring to post a
> story that is already a week or two old, how do you justify posting
> things that are a year old?

"Roy" in the subject line, so I see this.

There's a big difference between having old stories appended to a new story and
actually submitting old stories to site that revolves mainly around news. The
reason a no-longer-correct reference was included, by the way (forgot to
mention this in my previous message) is that I often grab groups of postings
rather than assess them on a one-by-one basis. It's risky, but the issue you
raise was not deliberate nonetheless.

Re: Roy the hypocrite

In article <2432574.1AQiuV4eB4@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> mention this in my previous message) is that I often grab groups of postings
> rather than assess them on a one-by-one basis. It's risky, but the issue you
> raise was not deliberate nonetheless.

So you go for quantity over quality. Is that also why you don't
proofread? To get the posts out faster?

Maybe you should consider posting a few *quality* posts a week, instead
of trying to spam as much as you can.

Re: [News] Linux CLI Enhanced Even Further

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer
wrote
on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:36:32 +0000:
> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Keith Windsor wrote on
>> Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:39:10 -0400
>> <47277c7c$0$26469$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>
>>> It would be better to simply send the 'object' across and
>>> automatically remap the address space of the object across the two
>>> scripts without having to copy the data.
>>
>> Gosh, how "innovative"! The Amiga was doing that, albeit not at the
>> shell level, back in the mid-80's! :-)
>
> AmgiaDOS had access to shared objects through both Workbench and the
> console via ARexx, provided that the supporting application had the
> necessary Arexx port and allowed such object access internally (as many
> did). Of course there were other mechanisms too, such as the
> multifarious handlers in SYS:L.

Actually, I was thinking the Message/Port stuff at a lower
level, but yes, Amiga was very good at passing objects
in system. Outside of system was a little harder, and
I don't think AmigaOS quite worked that out.

But then, this was before C++ and Java, after all.
>
>>> This would be especially useful if the second script that accepts
>>> this object as an input parameter did very little with the object
>>> then say... see if the collection is empty or not.
>
> There should be no restrictions on what can or cannot be done with
> shared resources, provided the correct locking mechanisms are used,
> and the right security contexts.
>
>> In which case one might simply pass a count instead.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Both pipes and shm are useful in different circumstances, in particular
> shm is of little use WRT network resources, virtualisation, sandboxing,
> printing, or frankly anything other than in-place operations that
> typically preclude backup objects.
>

I can get real Smalltalkish, admittedly; what is an object
anyway? At best, it's something that can receive a message
and contains data (and in a pinch one can skip the data,
resulting in, among other things, proxies -- of course the
proxy has to be able to find its destination).

At worst, it's a phantom concern; it all reduces to
machine language in the end. (Which machine, of course,
is negotiable.)

Java/EJB, for example, is an interesting implementation of
proxies autogenerated by the client side (the communication
uses a proprietary binary RMI, which IINM is a variant of
the .class file format.)

Re: Roy the hypocrite

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
wrote
on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:41:01 -0500:
> In article <2432574.1AQiuV4eB4@schestowitz.com>,
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> mention this in my previous message) is that I often
>> grab groups of postings rather than assess them on a
>> one-by-one basis. It's risky, but the issue you
>> raise was not deliberate nonetheless.
>
> So you go for quantity over quality. Is that also
> why you don't proofread? To get the posts out faster?
>
> Maybe you should consider posting a few *quality* posts
> a week, instead of trying to spam as much as you can.

Maybe, but then I have a question for you: who determines
what is a quality post?

[a] Roy Schestowitz?

[b] An impartial group of neutral observers? (Good luck
finding one, at this point.)

[c] A self-selected group of COLA lurkers?

[d] Denizens of alt.flame, alt.os.windows, alt.24hrsupport,
or alt.2600, to which COLA messages are occasionally
cross-posted?

Re: Roy the hypocrite

In article <28qmv4-ht4.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > Maybe you should consider posting a few *quality* posts
> > a week, instead of trying to spam as much as you can.
>
> Maybe, but then I have a question for you: who determines
> what is a quality post?
>
> [a] Roy Schestowitz?
>
> [b] An impartial group of neutral observers? (Good luck
> finding one, at this point.)
>
> [c] A self-selected group of COLA lurkers?
>
> [d] Denizens of alt.flame, alt.os.windows, alt.24hrsupport,
> or alt.2600, to which COLA messages are occasionally
> cross-posted?
>
> [e] Microsoft?

Generally, pretty much all of those proposed arbiters would find that
posts that are proofread and checked by the poster would tend to be
higher quality.

Sure, some people who proofread and check their posts produce low
quality posts, but at least there's a chance they might not, and they
are trying. Roy's mass-production approach *guarantees* that he won't
achieve quality.

Re: Roy the hypocrite

On 2007-10-31, The Ghost In The Machine claimed:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
>
> wrote
>> Maybe you should consider posting a few *quality* posts
>> a week, instead of trying to spam as much as you can.
>
> Maybe, but then I have a question for you: who determines
> what is a quality post?
>
> [a] Roy Schestowitz?
>
> [b] An impartial group of neutral observers? (Good luck
> finding one, at this point.)
>
> [c] A self-selected group of COLA lurkers?
>
> [d] Denizens of alt.flame, alt.os.windows, alt.24hrsupport,
> or alt.2600, to which COLA messages are occasionally
> cross-posted?
>
> [e] Microsoft?

[e] Timmy FUDkenbusch Quark?

--
A girlfriend may be a free trial, but you get a life sentence.

Re: Roy the hypocrite

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sinister Midget
wrote
on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:32:39 -0500:
> On 2007-10-31, The Ghost In The Machine claimed:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
>>
>> wrote
>
>>> Maybe you should consider posting a few *quality* posts
>>> a week, instead of trying to spam as much as you can.
>>
>> Maybe, but then I have a question for you: who determines
>> what is a quality post?
>>
>> [a] Roy Schestowitz?
>>
>> [b] An impartial group of neutral observers? (Good luck
>> finding one, at this point.)
>>
>> [c] A self-selected group of COLA lurkers?
>>
>> [d] Denizens of alt.flame, alt.os.windows, alt.24hrsupport,
>> or alt.2600, to which COLA messages are occasionally
>> cross-posted?
>>
>> [e] Microsoft?
>
> [e] Timmy FUDkenbusch Quark?
>

Oops...though that was covered somewhere. :-) But yes,
the entire question might be put pithily as "who decides?".

Quality is on occasion in the eye of the beholder,
though not always (e.g., it's not difficult for most
to distinguish a river of clean pure water from a river
full of smelly industrial waste, but there are gray areas
in between, and the gray areas are where some might see
half-empty and others half-full).

In any event he's yet to answer my question, though I'm
not sure if I can answer it either; I know what I like but
it's not for everybody.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?

Re: Roy the hypocrite

After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> Let's not pretend c.o.l.a. produces ~10000 articles a month at all. A
> vast majority come from a single person. If that single person would
> post quality posts, one would assume the quality of c.o.l.a. would go
> up.

Aye, cc, aye!

--
Tux rox!

Re: Roy the hypocrite

In article <1336791.SV6QHC7mis@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> I proofread properly and rewrite bits if I write papers or articles. These
> are /discussions/. It's like instant messaging. We exchange knowledge, which
> we can later apply when we write technical things that are more accurate.
> Let's not pretend that c.o.l.a. produces ~10,000 high-quality 'articles' per
> month. It's about exchange of information, a discussion...

So it's OK to waste people's time with poor, misleading, inaccurate
articles, because this is just a discussion?

Re: Roy the hypocrite

On Oct 31, 9:39 pm, "[H]omer" wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
>
> > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> >> Let's not pretend c.o.l.a. produces ~10000 articles a month at all.
> >> A vast majority come from a single person. If that single person
> >> would post quality posts, one would assume the quality of c.o.l.a.
> >> would go up.
>
> More likely it would become overrun by idiots like you and the other
> trolls, essentially turning COLA into a Microsoft stock ticker.

Ahh yes. Roy's barrage of inaccurate Microsoft stories really do keep
out all the Linux horror story posts and posts discussing Roy's
sexuality. Not to mention the corrections and criticism he receives.
Also, I am neither an idiot nor a troll, thank you very much.